Messages

4751

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Jerky dual axis movement

« on: April 21, 2018, 08:48:28 AM »

Hi,
found the page with the DIP switch settings and 12800 is certainly on the list.

Given that your encoder is 4000 counts per revolution is there any thing to be gained by even greater number of micro steps? Looking at the list there is an option for 3200 steps per rev.
Each step would be achieved because the encoder has slightly finer resolution whereas your existing 12800 setting could only be guaranteed at those locations where the encoder positions are,
ie 4000 positions in a revolution.

Even with the microstepping dropped back to 3200 per rev the resolution would be 3.125um or just a little over 1/10 th of a thousandth of an inch, plenty good!

It might be worth a try, after all you only have to flick a couple of switches and redo the 'steps per unit'

Craig

4752

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: Jerky dual axis movement

« on: April 21, 2018, 08:25:15 AM »

Hi,
reading the manual for your stepper/driver and its fitted with a 1000 line encoder which results in 4000 counts per rev. I'm intrigued as to how you get to a microstep regeime of 12800?

Craig

4753

General Mach Discussion / Re: Switching from Mach3 to Mach4

« on: April 21, 2018, 08:03:30 AM »

Hi,
the screen from which you took your screen shot is the Lathe screen and is relatively new, certainly not 3-4 years. The wx4 and wx6 screen sets have been around for that length of time and don't
to my knowledge suffer any imperfections.

This from smurph:

But that GUI has miles of code in it.  Do you ever wonder why other CNC controls don't have anything like it?  Because it is HARD TO DO!!  The core and all of the plugins combined have less lines of code. 

From the guy who wrote it. Can in fact any of the other programs manipulate and edit screens in the manner that Mach4 can?

Then click more or less any button and get the message that you can't do this in the demo... my reaction was "well why release a demo if you can't actualy do anything with it?"

Demo is fully operational for up to six minutes at a time or alternately unlimited time with the Sim(ulator) Plugin.

Granted - but why has it taken so long? The Mach3 Warp9 software has been table and not changed for a while, so it's not as if they are working on that. Many feel the information dribbling out of NFS is a factor.

I suspect because Warp9 is effectively one man...Andy, and his principle responsibility is support for existing customers. Development comes a distant second. Sales volumes dictate what can be achieved. At $180
a board...not much. You may have noticed that Vital Systems are considerably further ahead with the 'hardware only' features including THC and lathe threading but their boards start at $600. Allows more scope
for development when you have budget. NFS are as keen as anyone to see motion controllers developed to the fullest and earliest possible moment but they are not responsible for hardware development. That is the
downside of having outsourced hardware. The advantage is that there are competing hardware products for us to chose from. At the current time six manufacturers of reputable boards.

Do the other CNC controls have multiple hardware vendors?

OK that's good - however how do I test this for myself?  well apart from spending $200 for the privilage...

You can't, and I'm not sure I would recommend it to you. If you are of the opinion that a minor screen fault calls into question the softwares ability to control a machine
then I suspect you would find additional complaints which would result in you being an unhappy customer. I questioned the wisdom of me migrating to Mach4 in the first few months but I have stuck with it
and have derived immense satisfaction from it. I now also begin to perceive how big a quantum leap forward Mach4 is over Mach3, it is not evident to you but it is to me.

Differing opinions are always welcome.

Craig

4754

General Mach Discussion / Re: mach 3 not working?

« on: April 21, 2018, 06:51:18 AM »

Hi Eric,
I'm coming to the conclusion that Roger is right....that somehow your profile has been corrupted and your 'steps per unit' is out of whack.

Just double check that Machs native units have not  changed...that is Config/Select Native Units

Craig

4755

General Mach Discussion / Re: mach 3 not working?

« on: April 20, 2018, 07:07:27 PM »

Hi,
sorry misinterpreted the size, should be 6 inches by 8 inches.

Craig

4756

General Mach Discussion / Re: mach 3 not working?

« on: April 20, 2018, 07:04:43 PM »

Hi,
I downloaded the file and opened with Mach3 and it seems to work. I end up with a roughly rectangular part about 3 inches by 4 inches.
I've attached a pic of the part in my CNC viewer.

Craig

4757

General Mach Discussion / Re: Switching from Mach3 to Mach4

« on: April 20, 2018, 06:47:41 PM »

Hi Rimmel,
I think your criticism is unfair.

You pointed out a screen where a small fraction of a control was truncated by virtue of the screen size. Screens written by NFS are usually pretty good, they fit most screens and/or scale to most screens but not all.
Because a screen set does not fit perfectly with your PC screen without you having to do a few screen editing tweaks you are claiming incompetence by NFS?  Of the other CNC software you have mentioned how many
have as able screen editing and GUI functions as Mach4? The screen editing and GUI functions represent a very much larger chunk of code than Machs core and very much harder to achieve and are a major step up
over its competeition.

Additionally, does it matter that much....I mean this is software for controlling a mill, router, lathe or whatever, is an imperfection in the screen set going to change how the machine works? What really important here?

A number of machining functions/features have to be enacted by the motion controller not Mach, backlash compensation, lathe threading and THC are some examples. They must be done in realtime
which absolutely precludes them being enacted within Mach, Mach is not realtime. At this time the external motion controllers have some but not all features implemented. You mention the ESS, you may
have been following the Warp9 forum but Backlash compensation is in Beta testing now and the majority of the code for lathe threading is already written. Warp9 have decided to 'up the ante' by having mulitpulse
spindle feedback and this has caused a delay to the release of lathe threading. The PMDX-422 on the other hand does support lathe threading but not backlash compensation.

The salient point here is that you can't blame Mach4 for something that Mach4 cannot now, or ever, do. You may recall when external motion controllers were being developed for Mach3 a similar situation applied
where one maker would have features A and B but not C and D and another maker would have features A, C and D but not B. Eventually all manufacturers arrived at the happy point where all the 'hardware
only' features are supported across all brands. That has not yet occurred amongst Mach4 capable external motion controllers and NFS is not able to do anything about it.

If the difference in capabilities of the 'hardware only' features are excluded then Mach3 and Mach4 are indentical, they are both near ANSI compliant Gcode interpreters. Indeed Mach4 Industrial has MacroB
ability and so might be argued that Mach4 is more capable than Mach3. As I have Mach4Hobby without MacroB I don't make that claim but certainly ANYTHING I could do in Mach3 I can do in Mach4
EXCLUDING only those 'hardware only' features.

The main reason for me to migrate from Mach3 (three years use with two parallel ports) to Mach4 (18 moths with ESS and two BoBs) was because VB, or more  accurately CE, the cutdown version of VB that
ships with Mach3 as its scripting language was and is riddled with inconsistentencies. Look up a recent thread in Mach3 about 'Scripter Complie Errors". Lua has proven to be absolutely consistent, not easy to
use to start with to be sure, but superbly consistent when it does. I have likewise found Mach4 to be much more stable. There are oddities certainly but few bugs.

Craig

4758

General Mach Discussion / Re: mach 3 not working?

« on: April 20, 2018, 05:53:42 PM »

Hi,
the second line of Gcode is:

Code: [Select]

G20 G90 G40
Note there is a G20 already in it. Therefore your additional G20 which preceeds it is not required, it wont do any harm, G20/G21 are 'modal', they stay in
effect until deliberately changed.

Can you post the complete Gcode file as an attachment ( use "Additional Option....' just to the left of the text input panel).

Craig

4759

Mach4 General Discussion / Re: mach 4 plasma

« on: April 20, 2018, 05:18:16 PM »

Hi,
what in particular is this new screen supposed to do?

Is there any reason that you don't make your own screen, after all that's what the screen editor/GUI was provided for.

Craig

4760

General Mach Discussion / Re: mach 3 not working?

« on: April 20, 2018, 04:49:05 PM »

Hi,
if you put a line in your Gcode file right at the top G20. Then try running the file.

Craig